For most of human history, feeding infants at the breast was a fact of life. Although cross-cultural feeding practices varied widely with regard to the timing of weaning and the extent and variety of supplementary foods, infants depended on breast milk (maternal or of a wet nurse) for survival in their first several months, and usually years, of life. With the introduction of safe breast milk alternatives (infant formula) in the 20th century, breastfeeding has become an option framed by access to resources; corporate interests; public policy; competing ideas about science, motherhood, and standards of infant care; and global inequalities. (Wolf, 595-635)
Stakeholders
Oblivious to breast milk and breastfeeding throughout much of the 20th century, in the mid-1970s, medical and nutrition scientists and practitioners began to investigate breast milk composition, lactation physiology, and the correlation between breast milk and a range of medical and psychological conditions and diseases, including ear infections, asthma, gastrointestinal ailments, diabetes, allergies, intelligence, obesity, autism, and infant death syndrome. The cumulative data suggest that breast milk has a positive effect on various health conditions. This evidence is captured by the now axiomatic notion that “the breast is best” for infants, mothers, families, populations, and the environment. (Wolf, 397-424) On the heels of this evidence, and in an effort to increase breastfeeding initiation rates, extend the duration of breastfeeding across the population, and reduce instances of nonexclusive breastfeeding before 6 months (when breast milk is to be supplemented but not replaced by other foods), national and international medical associations and public health officials began to promote breastfeeding as the primary infant feeding method in the 1980s. These campaigns that frame breastfeeding as a rational and responsible parenting choice have been supported by grassroots anticorporate activists, advocates of natural parenting methods, and most recently, feminist “lactivists” (lactation activists). (Avishai, 135-152)
History / Background
When breast milk alternatives were first introduced in the late 1800s, results were disastrous. High mortality and morbidity rates of infants whose diets were supplemented in the early weeks of life spurred breastfeeding campaigns in the United States and in Britain. These campaigns encouraged women to breastfeed longer and to avoid unsafe supplements and alternatives.
Theories and Trends
When safer alternatives became widely available in the 1920s, breastfeeding rates began to decline worldwide, and by the 1930s, infant feeding methods were viewed as a matter of choice in Western nations. Promoted as more convenient and later as more nutritious than human milk, formula was perceived as an equivalent alternative to breast milk, sometimes even touted as a superior alternative. As part of the process that brought reproduction and parenting under the purview of experts, infant feeding came under scrutiny in the 1950s. Rima Apple, in Mothers and Medicine, informs that during this period, American physicians and public health officials began to promote formula as the modern, responsible, scientific, and “American” method to feed one's child. (Apple, 56-70) Pam Carter makes a similar observation in the British context. Combined with practices that interfered with lactation mechanisms, such as maternal-infant separation in hospitals ...